The Craig-Tooley Debate: Introduction

The Craig-Tooley Debate: Introduction

Against Apologetics: Argument from Consciousness: Does the Human Mind Prove the Existence of God?

Against Apologetics: Argument from Consciousness: Does the Human Mind Prove the Existence of God?

Nothing Fails Like Prayer | God Discussion

Nothing Fails Like Prayer | God Discussion

Rationalist Griggsy: WLC'c misanthropy!

Rationalist Griggsy: WLC'c misanthropy!

The Art of Ignorance

The Art of Ignorance

Sure, we can coexist, as long as your beliefs don’t matter | Enough's Enough

Sure, we can coexist, as long as your beliefs don’t matter | Enough's Enough

Swinburne on the Perfect Goodness of God

Swinburne on the Perfect Goodness of God

The Perfect Goodness of God – Again

The Perfect Goodness of God – Again

Swinburne’s Teleological Argument from Spatial Order

Swinburne’s Teleological Argument from Spatial Order

Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 8

Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 8

Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 1

Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 1

David Wood vs. John W. Loftus: Does God Exist? (Part One) - YouTube

David Wood vs. John W. Loftus: Does God Exist? (Part One) - YouTube

Arguments for the existence of God - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Arguments for the existence of God - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Ebon Musings: The Apologist's Handbook

Ebon Musings: The Apologist's Handbook

Naturalists win; supernaturalists lose

 I think that the previous article overwhelmingly supports naturalism. Supernaturalists use misinterpretations of evidence for evidence of the supernatural.
 Naturalism is not only the default position but it fits the evidence. Supernaturalists ever have to give convoluted, ad hoc arguments for the supernatural.
 Theists use God as that Super Mystery, surrounded by other mysteries for the ultimate explanation, but as fellow atheologist Keith Parsons notes : "  Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good answer." Adding all those other mysteries- the Incarnation, the Trinity for Christians- just add to making Him a pseudo -answer to pseudo-questions.
     The Aquinas- Shelly superfluity argument claims that people need not add God as the ultimate explanation in Percy Bysshe Shelley's words:' To suppose that some existence beyond or above them [ the descriptions- laws-of Nature, M.l.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted." Then to argue that that is a category mistake would beg the question of that second[ metaphysical] category.
     I'll comment further at this article later.

God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence

God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence

Debunking Christianity: God, Science, and The Black Death Plague

Debunking Christianity: God, Science, and The Black Death Plague

The Argument from Religious Experience: A look at its strength « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason"

The Argument from Religious Experience: A look at its strength « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason"

Sensitivity in its place, but not always sensitivity « Choice in Dying

Sensitivity in its place, but not always sensitivity « Choice in Dying

Why we don't need Yeshua!

     Why would a rational person want that forever-dead cult leader to lead her to the putative Deity anyway? Why would a rational person want to believe in Him anyway?
     We naturalists/ rationalists never enslave ourselves to reason! That is just a red herring to detract from the lack of evidence for the Deity.
     The ideas of the Incarnation and the Trinity as Aquinas  notes rest on faith, not of reason, and we rationalists/naturalists find both incoherent, affirming ignosticism!
      Non-fundamentalists- errantists- favor sophistry as much as any fundamentalists!
      We do mainly good most of the time; hardly are we sinners- coming short of His standards.No we come short of our human morality! Deity has no rights over us, yes, none to judge and contemn us! His whims do not count! His wish to have a relationship with us would be useless should we not want it were He to exist!
    What counts is what is good for sentient beings instead of for the Deity! How immoral to state otherwise!
     Therefore, we need no blood sacrifice for us! What a barbarism! How immoral!
     How blasphemous to reason to declare that due tosin, we wilfully won't obey! No, ti's due to lack of evidence! We seek a better morality!
     This type of way to Him is in part why I am a gnu atheist!
      No! He is not written in our hearts! No sensus divinatis- sense of the Deity- exists. Our moral sense evolved and we refine it. No theistic evolution- unfolding- of morality has occurred due to Him.